On Friday 09 May 2008 07:50, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> On 8 Maj, 22:05, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 06 May 2008 00:52, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>> >> >> > one
>> >> >> > true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can
>> >> >> > become the common world view that further scientific activity
is
>> >> >> > based on.
>>
>> >> >> We already have a true reality, science is about describing it.
>>
>> >> > That's what I'm saying. But one isolated person does not a
scientist
>> >> > make, and cannot make science, because he has no way of knowing
what
>> >> > is objective and what is just his personal experience.
>>
>> >> That doesn't matter, reproducible and foreseeable results and
>> >> falsifiable hypothesis do.
>>
>> > But those criteria are the result of millennia of cultural
>> > development, involving thousands of people debating the subject! I
>> > truly do not understand how you can in any way possibly deny that
>> > science is impossible in a setting of a single person. You know about
>> > the real world's scientific community! Peer review! You only trust
>> > science because you know it has been checked and rechecked by many
>> > qualified scientists! Who the hell exists to define something as
>> > science in a closed system of a single person? How could this person
>> > possibly determine what science is, or which measurements are more
>> > successful or botched than others, when there's no one else around to
>> > agree with him about it? This is really the most preposterous view
you
>> > have subjected me to yet. And it's not just a question of me
>> > "including everything"; I'm only describing the obvious, superficial
>> > and agreed-by-all-except-YOU nature of science here. One person does
>> > not do science! Science is a cultural institution and can only be
>> > performed within the realm of such. It's an agreed-upon way of
>> > understanding the world. Any one person deciding for himself how to
>> > understand the world, without others to confirm his tests and
>> > inquiries, is being religious. And apparently that's what you are
>> > drawn to, since you repeatedly insist than one, single allegedly
>> > rational individual can do science.
>>
>> You can say this about any human endeavor. Nothing we do is isolated
from
>> our cultural history, that's implicit in everything.
>
> Thank you. But the fact remains that there can be no science without a
> scientific community to decide what's accepted as science.
>
Right. So what? How does E=mc2 change because of that fact? How does lab
work change now that we now this? It doesn't. Acknowledging that "Nothing
we do is isolated from our cultural history" doesn't make any difference,
and shouldn't be part of a definition, just like it should be part of
explaining what football is. And your idea of letting the scientific
community define science for us is certainly going to help me a lot more
than you!
>> I'm not questioning that everything is in change, I'm asking you how
>> acknowledging that fact help us. Show me _how_ it's usefull.
>
> It helps us understand life, the universe and everything. It helps us
> understand how things are, so we can interact with reality more
> efficiently. When we embark on a new scientific experiment, it helps
> us recognize dynamism and interconnectedness when we see them.
Show me some practical examples of this. When did a scientist more easily
recognize dynamism (whatever the hell that is...) because he had the
cultural history of his species in the back of his head when he did an
experiment?
> That
> things constantly change is a fundamental frame of reference on which
> all other things should be understood. It's a new paradigm, but one
> that no one seems to have quite taken the consequence of yet.
>
Because there _is_ no consequence. Please, show otherwise if you can.
>> >>, one that produces useful results. Some that
>> >> philosophy doesn't even claim to be able to. Science _works_.
>>
>> > Mechanics works. Science is a complex set of ideas and practices
>> > existing in a cultural context.
>>
>> Which work. Are you claiming otherwise?
>
> I'm claiming that if your defintion of science is "anything that
> works",
It isn't.
> you're talking about mechanics. Science is something more
> abstract which proceeds from a cultural context, and requires
> independent confirmation. You are *only* allowed to call your work
> "science" if an existing scientific community regards it as science.
>
And what makes a community scientific? Your style of logic doesn't work
out
here in the real world.
//Niels
|
